Talk:Vaccine controversy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents


Deletion Debate

This article is mostly poorly formed ad hominem attacks. I propose it be deleted. Zbrock 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is rather poor quality and think it's all bull, doing that will not help Nil Einne 12:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that quite a bit of it is rubbish, there are some factual concerns hiding away. In any case, there is a significant controversy over widespread mandatory vaccination policies, and the controversy should be addressed. I do suggest a total overhaul, however! Kitarra 07:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it should be merged with Anti-vaccinationist (or visa versa) since one page is essentially pro and the other anti. Cilstr 17:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Problems

Actually, at least one autoimmune disease (MS disease) is a known adverse effect of Engerix hepB vaccine, mentioned in the approval informatio, see e.g. http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_engerixb.pdf - also, vaccines are mentioned as a possible cause on more than one page on autoimmune disases. Jkpjkp 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
"Rare instances of exacerbation of multiple sclerosis have been reported". That's not at all the same thing as saying that MS is caused by the vaccine (and as the document says, it's not restricted to that vaccine). --ajn (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Are we reading the same document? A quote from the above approval information URL directly from the vaccine manufacturer's site: "Postmarketing Reports: Additional adverse experiences have been reported with the commercial use of ENGERIX-B. Those listed below are to serve as alerting information to physicians. ... Nervous System: Migraine; syncope; paresis; neuropathy including hypoesthesia, paresthesia, Guillain-Barré syndrome and Bell’s palsy, transverse myelitis; optic neuritis; multiple sclerosis; seizures." Jkpjkp 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Second here to the previous comment of "Are we reading ...". If the offending statement is "Many severe autoimmune diseases are known or suspected to be caused by vaccines" then it would appear the statement could at least be reworked to read "Many severe autoimmune diseases suspected to be caused by vaccines", which would be entirely consistent with customary cautions associated with drug delivery where side-effects were reported or detected during studies or clinical events but insufficient data exists to say outright that causality is present. Detection of causality is not required to issue an alert to prescribing physicians, simply credible detection during test. Provided with the warnings, physicians and patients are expected to exercise intelligent judgment under uncertainty, i.e.: Nexium may control acid reflux but many patients report that when taking it they get heartburn. We don't have to establish causality to write the patient reports into the alert. That way, if a patient reports the response to the prescribing doctor, the doctor knows this isn't in isolation but there have been other reports and can re-assess and determine alternatives. Requiring statistical evidence of causality prior to expressing any concerns about the affects of a drug is a practice of denying critical information to patients who have a right to the information and a right to decline treatment based on their own assessment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.182.124.3 (talk • contribs).
I see what you're saying, and I agree that it's definitely worth a (sourced!) mention in the article. Perhaps the statement could read, "Many severe autoimmune diseases are suspected to be caused or exacerbated by specific vaccines." As the original reads, all vaccines are suspect, and the only sources proffered are for ENGERIX-B. However, even that isn't ideal as it doesn't address any of the concerns besides autoimmune diseases. It would be nice, for neutrality's sake, to have a well-written and properly sourced entry on the con side of the debate. Kitarra 07:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Several studies have found no link between Hep B vaccination and MS (PMID 10683009, PMID 11172163, PMID 12707063 for example, in Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine). At least one study did find an increased risk (PMID 15365133). The authors of the positive study, from the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote a 2006 editorial entitled "Hepatitis B vaccination and multiple sclerosis: the jury is still out" (PMID 16245367), in which they examined the methodology of all of these studies and found some degree of flaw with each. Their conclusion was that there's not enough evidence to establish a causative link between Hep B vaccine and MS, but also not enough evidence to completely disprove such a link. And of course, "further study is needed" as always. This shouldn't be too hard to write into the article, yes? MastCell 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To expand on the above: the cited source (Hep B product insert) clearly states that no causal relationship between Hep B vaccine and MS is known. The article makes sweeping statements which are just not backed up by the citation, and I'll tag them as such. I agree with the anon IP that people should have all the information available to make their own health decisions, which is why it's important not to claim there's a "known" relationship when there isn't. As for the other neurologic conditions, sources will be needed for those as well - Guillain-Barre should be pretty easy to find, the others maybe not so much. MastCell 19:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

I'm sorry, but the political agenda of JPandS is relevant (as one of their major political issues is anti-vaccinationism). The journal has a clearly stated political agenda, and the piece in question was, in fact, authored by someone with a legal rather than scientific or medical background. Setting it up as if it "rebuts" the Cochrane Library report is a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. As it claims to be a medical journal, the fact that it's not indexed in MEDLINE is relevant. MastCell Talk 03:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't keep reverting without discussing these issues on the talk page. MastCell Talk 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Supporters and critics

What on earth is that long list of vaccine supporters and critics doing on the page? Shouldn't they be at least on their own list pages, like List of vaccine supporters and another for critics? They take up an immense amount of space on the page, for nothing much I can see. It's got to violate a couple WP:NOTs, like indiscriminate information, mere collection of internal links, directory, etc. --WLU 20:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the lists for supporters and critics - I can't see any value to the page. It just asks people to add their names to it as if it were a petition, and you could see this by the number of redlinks in each list. WLU 13:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, also raises BLP issues as it's essentially unsourced. I agree with removing it. MastCell Talk 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Should the article Anti-vaccinationist be merged into this one? The two articles cover a lot of the same ground, and I do not see a reason why there should not be a single cohesive article on this subject, as opposed to two disorganised ones. -Severa (!!!) 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. Anti-vaccinationist is a logical section here in vaccine controversy, in my opinion. Heathhunnicutt 05:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)